imported post
Balanced as far as opinions, but the Lennon-esque opening (Imagine...) is leaning a bit. It also doesn't help that they didn't even consult the Bradys; they found gun owners and instructors who were against open carry, and made the OC argument sound mostly rights-based (the na-nanny-boo-boo argument, IMO)without much discussion on practical advantages (far more convincing). There are better arguments for OC, and counter-arguments to pretty much everything the "no" interviewees said. But, the average news reader or watcher would not have gotten that from the article or report.
So, without further ado, here are the arguments presented against:
* OC will create the Wild Wild West - They said that about concealed carry as well. In fact, violent crime in the frontier days was virtually nonexistent, BECAUSE everyone from the sheriff to Granny was packing. Criminals want an easy target. The knowledge that you have a gun makes you a hard target and therefore likely to be left alone. I generalize here, but really anyone who tries this argument is getting their history from spaghetti westerns and not reality.
* Gun carry is a privilege, not a right - Go back and read the 2A again. "to keep arms" would translate to carry as well as ownership in today's parlance.
* A gun should not be used because someone called you a nasty name; only when you are in fear for your life - Never have truer words been spoken. So how does this support your anti-OC position?
* Unlicensed OC will give people the ability to carry without first having had the training - Oh, OK. I can see how that follows. However, this argument's implication is that someone, having not grown up around guns, will walk into a gun store the day after OC laws pass, buy a gun and a holster, and start walking around in public. Look at the 11 "gold-star states" and tell me that's likely to happen. Those who advocate open carry know the law, know when use of force is permissible, and know how and how not to use a gun.
* If OC ends up licensed, you might as well carry concealed - Concealed carry has its advantages, however so does OC. I bet I, with very little practice, canunholster and readyfromOC, even with a thumb break,faster than the instructor can ready his CC, even with the untucked shirt. It is also more comfortable; most CC is either IWB or with an untucked collared short over an undershirt. Neither is desireable when walking around outside in a Texas summer. It tops 100* and unlike Arizona we have the humidity to boot. It is also a visual deterrent to most criminals (though I am willing to entertain the argument that someone planning to rob a bank will be on the lookout for armed resistance). Its only real disadvantage is public reaction; sheep are "out of sight, out of mind" type creatures, and when a sheepdog bares his fangs they're startled and want the fangs to go away.
In fact, EVERY CHL holder should be pushing for at least licensed OC. Why? Because in Texas, intentional failure to conceal is aClass Amisdemeanor (if you get a hanging judge you can go to jail for 6 months), and it's a 5-year ban on having your CHL. On top of that, the definition of "intentional" as interpreted by case law is fuzzy; if a conscious and intended action by the CHL reveals the weapon, whether the CHL actually intendedto reveal it or not, the CHL holder "intentionally" failed to conceal. So,if you take off your overshirt because it's hotter than blue blazes, and someone spots your gun before you untuck your T-shirt, you are going to court and will probably lose. If OC were legal, there would be no such thing as an intentional failure to conceal, except if concealed but not OCed weapons were allowed. What CHLer doesn't want the relief of knowing they won't go to jail if they bend over and their shirt rides up showing their 4:00 carry?
